Help educate a european

Husqvarna, good shot on generalizations :cool: …I didn’t mean all Europeans but was referring to European documents …mostly I’ve been speaking in relation to the English unwritten(<snicker>) constitution, numerous French documents (in effect, sorta in effect, and "not really but we pretend they are beecauzze we are Fraannch"), and Weimar Constitution (scared to say much here 'cause I don’t wanna stir ‘em up) … JUST KIDDING !:D … but the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also mixes collective rights with those of the individual. Collective rights gradually win out over individual ones, as conflicts between them arise. It also resorts to arbitrary definition of rights. The right to life in particular is defined as an absolute.

Except by arbitrary definition, how would you resolve the conflict between the EU "right to life" and the use of deadly force in self defense? ... or will you take the easy way out?;)
 
I don't know that soldiers, any soldiers from anywhere, necessarily fight for freedom. Some of them don't have much to begin with, so it can't be that, even in this country. You can't tell me the Confederates fought for freedom and still kept slaves. So it must be something more complicated--or simplier. Even so-called religious wars are usually not about religion at the core.

People fight for their country. That's all patriotism is about.
 
A simple answer is that … when faced with an outside enemy, a people tend to band together. People have different reasons to fight based upon their own sense of values, including both emotional and empirical considerations. Even those forced to fight, have decided doing so is in their best interests under their circumstances. People choose the side which they see as best protecting their interests as a whole, and differences are preserved in the individuals unless there are internal purges.

The field commander of our Confederate armies was against slavery. He saw it as a shameful institution and morally repugnant, and he wasn’t the only one among the Confederates who thought that way. He subdued that passion in favor of others, and chose to fight for the South.
Those in favor of slavery, fought partly to preserve it as a right to property; and oddly enough, a form of freedom… their freedom taken at the expense of another. This is not liberty, but a misapplication of the right to property.

Freedom is rarely, if ever, a good thing, unless you’re alone. Once another person enters the picture, liberty is the standard for good, imho.
 
That's doublespeak if I've ever heard it.

I've mentioned this before but this is a good place to mention it again. My wife's great-great grandfather was Samuel Cooper, adjutant general of the Confederate army, formerly of the United States Army. He was from New York. However, he married George Mason's granddaughter and I suspect she may have had something to do with it.

Speaking of property, who do you belong to?
 
"People fight for their country. That's all patriotism is about"


Actually... they usually fight for their immediate "Family", that typically being their unit (Platoon, Squad, Regiment). They fight for what they can see and conceptualize... which is usually the opinion of their comarades, rather than some larger "thing" that is outside of their immediate focus.


Willie

.
 
You are correct, sir, and that is not generally appreciated outside of the service. But they join to begin with, usually, if there is a need for them, out of patriotism. There are other reasons, of course, sometimes simple, sometimes complex. Here's an example.

Some other antecedent of my wife, who has deep roots in Virginia, did not especially want to go off to war in 1861 but he did anyway at his family's urging. He vowed never to do anything after the war and true to his word, he never did. I don't remember his name and in any event, he never became a war hero, to be sure.

The point is, he was fulfilling an obligation, whether he wanted to or not. We all have some obligations to others. That's true everywhere; always has been.
 
any soldiers from anywhere, necessarily fight for freedom
Click to expand...

It depends on the individual.. I certainly do believe that I fought for Freedom as a direct idea.. Of course I also was a active part of the cold war and that definitely had some things to do with freedom.

For myself I always fought for my nation, my brothers and sisters in arms, my flag and the concepts of the constitution and the Bill of Rights, my family and those who could not defend themselves or were to weak to do so on their own.

For some its just a job.. for others its much more... very individual..
 
Shake my family tree and Jeff Davis falls out, and no ancestor fought on the northern side, but I don’t see what that has to do with anything. The CSA is a failed country on the ash heap of history. … and you’re the one that brought it up in relation to why people fight.;)
I oppose many things my country does(some vehemently), but weighing all considerations, I would still fight to support it. Is this doublespeak, or a personal weighing of values against each other? The things I like about this country outweigh my dislikes. Adding my power to the collective in order to achieve most of my goals is a strategy…. It doesn’t mean I cede rights, only power. It also doesn’t mean the fight is over when the outside enemy is defeated. It does mean delayed gratification on grievances with my government…and different methods in a future "fight" to address them.

The South can be seen as an example of collective rights over the individual … individuals ceding their rights to each of their respective States, and the States being able to define which groups had rights; and what the rights were for each group. ... relics of an earlier time incorporated in the Constitution, imo.
The US Constitution was originally constructed to accommodate this, and States had rights(derived from the People’s rights) with respect to the Federal Government. I would argue that this is no longer the case thanks to the 14th Amendment, but that’s a whole ‘nuther hornet’s nest.
Speaking of property, who do you belong to?
Click to expand...
Apparently, my wife, since I have willingly given myself to her. It’s a personal choice though, and outside of the govt’s. ability to regulate.
And just to make that comment gun related … another reason I belong to her could be that I taught her how to shoot…:D
 
We do have self defense but we don't even use the Swedish word for it, more translated to protection in need

it doesn't particularly state lethal force but force/violence is deemed necessary

alotta greyarea and fuzzy written laws, "not obviously indefensible" is the level of force you are allowed to use. talk about fuzzy legal mumbo jumbo

but bear in mind we don't have guns for SD here so it very rarely comes to lethal force. but we do have a kinda "temporary insanity" clause which helps :D if the circumstances makes it hard to calm down.

As the laws are written I can almost see a castle law defense being used as it qualifies on two of the 4 given circumstances where protection in need can be used.

nr1 would loosely translated be: Against a crime aimed at an individual or property
nr3. against person illegally entering home, building, boat

We have had some cases in recent years with a lethal outcome where the defenders walked free so it is working I guess
 
alotta greyarea and fuzzy written laws, "not obviously indefensible" is the level of force you are allowed to use.
Click to expand...

The problem is that no law is going to clearly address every possible event.

In the USA we have 50 different states (and the District of Columbia) that all have slightly different laws, both statute and case (common) law and we have not even added in all the cities, counties, and other sub-municipalities.

There are still a few general guidelines that work almost everywhere though.

Lethal force can only be used to defend against death or grave bodily injury (and even grave bodily injury has hundreds of variations).

It IS going to be a big deal in MANY places.
Bigger and worse in some than others.

We do have court cases going way back and all the way to the supreme court about things like retreat in your home.

About the best you can do is learn and understand the laws in the locations you are allowed to carry.

Some places have statutory laws, others have only case (common) law (Virginia is an example of NO statutory law. Not even for the police.
They operate under the common law just like the rest of us.
Though it is a pretty good set of laws.

Do not confuse all the discussions with how many times anyone actually gets shot.
Something in the high 90% range of incidents end with the display of the gun.
No shots.
 
Last edited:
The funny thing is that until like 25 years ago we did have pretty liberal gunlaws. you just bought what you wanted and got your license, now you gotta be a hunter or a sports shooter and not only pass some tests but actually be active too
Click to expand...
Thoughts of an erosion of rights like that make everyone on this board shudder (and send another $20 to the NRA).
I think the thought of this is what make the US look extreme sometimes. Often it's not the idividual right being targeted that gets people upset. It could be something on the chopping block that no one even cares about but loosing any right or freedom is a big deal. It leads to that gradual erosion of rights over time until one day you look back and ask yourself "How the h*!! did we get here?" You can have a huge pile of sand, if you keep taking away from it just one bucket at a time, you won't notice anything missing but one day, that huge pile of sand will be gone.
 
It wasn't really ever a right per say. it just lacked regulation.

And tbh I am on the fence(mainly because I want to buy more guns myself). I want gunowners to be somewhat educated/licensed. maybe akin to driving a car would be enough. Because what I see at the range sometimes is horrible and can't fathom how it is for you when almost anybody can own a gun

Over here those who had a gun pre 1985 or something can still own but they are a dwindling bunch age wise
 
Those who grow up socialized around guns often learn certain safety habits that are ingrained. When a government or a society demonizes everything gun related, they inadvertently suppress the absorption of positive attributes and habits as well.
 
husqvarna said:
It wasn't really ever a right per say. it just lacked regulation.

And tbh I am on the fence(mainly because I want to buy more guns myself). I want gunowners to be somewhat educated/licensed. maybe akin to driving a car would be enough. Because what I see at the range sometimes is horrible and can't fathom how it is for you when almost anybody can own a gun

Over here those who had a gun pre 1985 or something can still own but they are a dwindling bunch age wise
Click to expand...

Yes, it was a right, and it still is... Only the government is now denying that right, stealing it from its citizens. Your right don't come from government. They are indowed by your creator.

I ask you, in regards to "educated" gun owners, how many of these awful things that you've seen have lead to accidents?
How many stupid things do you see on the road every day? Are they prevented by licensing? They're not here. I read once that the road test in New York State hasn't been updated since 1937. I'm pretty sure the only resemblence driving in 2012 has to 1937 is that we still use 4 wheels.
What is all this licensing doing for us? Providing revenue for the government, that's what.
In most states, there are licensing requirements of some sort for handguns, or at least concealed carry. Yet, you don't have to search The Firing Line archives very hard to find thread after thread about people doing stupid things at ranges.
What has all this licensing got us? Revenue for the government.
 
You just pushed me over the fence:). i have only been near one incident where there was several actual discharges, other cases i have naturally told the people involved or the rangemaster

But just to be clear gun laws aren't so high up on my political agenda, for me it works with hunting and membership in a pistol club and other political issues comes first
 
Well, I just wish that those who had grown up around guns (socialized, someone says) were safer but I don't believe it. It doesn't work with driving, either.

Okay, riddle me this: if such rights (gun ownership?) comes from our creator, then is that true for voting? This is not a trick question but merely wanting clarification.

Here's another bump on the road to understanding Americans and America. We aren't all the same. Maybe you knew that. Of course, Americans believe all Europeans are the same. They all speak four and one-half languages (Romani @ 1/2), drink wine, drive fast because there's no speed limit, go to nude beaches on the Baltic (take a sweater), build with stone because it lasts forever (except in the north where log houses are chic), abhor the .45, adore C&W music, and all play the harmonika. Some also prefer to drink beer. And also, Europe is full of foreigners because they can't control their borders.

How far off am I?

Americans on the other hand barely understand one another when they speak in person. Even I have to ask my mother-in-law to repeat herself and we grew up only a hundred miles apart. Some speak Spanish, I hear, but not Spanish Spanish. Then there are New Yorkers. Florida was settled by New Yorkers, judging from the language. Pennsylvania preserves pure Swiss-German language for future generations but Swedish has passed away. There must also be a remarkable number of French speaking people here somewhere because labels on store-bought goods include French but office machines have instructions in Chinese, maybe Japanese. After all, they're foreign languages.
 
Last edited:
Every quality that makes us what we are as individual humans, and doesn’t damage the same qualities of others, is our natural right. Invention is one of those rights. Our inventions become part of our environment and the rights to have and use them, come by virtue of their existence. Thus, we have the right to properly use firearms, including using them for self defense.

One might call government an invention, but government is a special case because we are allowed to state its terms as laws, which may or may not be in accordance with natural law. Normal inventions are typically governed by the laws of physics, and we don’t get to write those laws, no matter what the "overunity types" think. A revolutionary idea of our founders was that moral action was governed by formulae that mirrored the physical laws, and saw this as part of natural law. As an invention, the right to government is also governed by the principle of proper use.

If the government were constructed so that it was in full accordance with natural law, then voting would be a natural right. This is not possible due to our incomplete knowledge of natural law, and our natural inclination to push the limits of that law. Thus, voting can only be defined as a right by virtue of contract, a privilege granted in exchange for our agreement to terms.
 
I actually lived with a bunch of americans (exchange students) and we weren't that different from us Euro guys, american girls/women were much more stereotypical IMO

people born in the 70s and onwards are culturally very american, or even the generations after ww2, basically the whole entertainment thing. sure we have some stuff that are country specific but for the most part even the popular native acts are doing American stuff, We can even do your stuff as good as you especially when you think about music.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top